That kind of character is fine. As long as they have a developed personality and emotional range. Joker is a good example of it done right.
I'm not going to name the story in order to avoid spoilers, but MC eventually realizes that group A (which she's a member of) is happy and prosperous because of group B's continued suffering. MC has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to completely destroy the social system, preventing the continued exploitation of group B, but causing a lot of suffering among group A until society rebuilds. She decides against it in the hope that someday, somehow, there will be a better way to liberate group B that doesn't involve making group A suffer. She has no meaningful plan, timeframe, or resources devoted to this, and in the meantime she'll do everything she can to maintain order and continue group B's exploitation. I can't argue against this in terms of character arc. It makes total sense based on everything the MC has said and done previously. But there's no way I can sympathize with the choice she makes. It seems like the writer (who's Japanese) intended audiences to see group A as a representation of themselves and how they live, but American culture bears a lot more resemblance to group B. I couldn't help but see myself and the people around me in the various characters being enslaved, dehumanized, and slaughtered for the sake of continued stability.
That sounds awful. Unless, you're maybe not supposed to sympathize the choice. Does it seem possible based on the story that's it's supposed to be a fall kind of thing?
This was one of the flaws in Back to the Future. A lot of stories, including BTTF, make out that a bully is an island spit straight up from the ocean floor. Thomas F. Wilson tried to convince Zemeckis to at least hint that Biff was made that way by his environment, but it never happened, just one quick reference to a demanding gramma.
At the risk of taking this thread in the opposite direction to that intended by the OP... I prefer an underdog, too. We're often invited to laugh at an underdog as he struggles against overwhelming odds and I do prefer comedy, so there's that as an appealing element. Bernie Laplante in Hero, Marty McFly in Back to the Future, Neal Caffrey in White Collar... the list goes on (sorry for the TV and movie references, but I'm just not finding any novel references this morning for some reason). The underdog often has nothing and no one to back him up. He's gotta think his way out of his problems because that's all he's got, his wits. And when an underdog story is done right—with no deux ex machina and no last-minute help from a privileged acquaintance—it shows us that no matter who we are, we can beat the odds, the establishment or anything else that stands in the way of our happiness. And happiness is most often what the underdog gets in the end because all that other stuff just isn't worth fighting over. And to bring things back on-track... Cliché-spouting, he-hunks with flowing locks and endless resources are just boring. They also represent the status quo which is also boring and tedious. Law and order characters have taken over on TV and with all that's come out about the ruling classes, big business and billionaires in the last while, who can justify protecting them and their interests? I certainly can't and I don't wanna watch someone else do it, either.
I suppose it could be argued that charisma doesn't film well, but I take your point. No one could possibly be that charming... but maybe I run in the wrong circles. And besides, if filmmakers can't film charisma, why make it part of the character's make-up?
And there you've described Buckaroo Banzai. brain surgeon, expert marksman, pilot, driver, etc., etc. blah-blah-blah. Thank God John Lithgow (Big Boo-tay! Big Boo-tay!) was there putting electrodes on his own tongue to bring us back to reality.
This was done to good effect in Christopher Moore's, Lamb, the Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. Biff was the main character, rather weak-kneed and reluctant, so we got a skewed view of the chosen one, quite a delightful read. But I agree, this type of character is often just too much to take.
The token eccentric intellectual, who has very little capacity to cool it on the quirkiness. They seem like a reasonably complex character, until you realized all their traits are in being fun and odd and nerdy. And they are not a real human being. As someone who is an eccentric intellectual type, I find this almost offensive. Like once you are an odd nerd it consumes every fibre of your being. Like many of the complaints here, it's all about disregarding further development and diversity in the character, and leaving them instead a little/ very hollow. An example of this averted is (somewhat surprisingly) Cisco Ramone from The Flash. Who initially seems like there's not going to be anything else to him, but quickly begins a pattern of having a surprisingly high number of more serious, restrained moments away from his usual Adorkable type behaviour.
But, you haven't lived until you've seen Bernie Laplante's version of this in Hero. Go take a look; I'll watch your shoes.
I tried reading that series, but I couldn't get past the rape scene. Maybe that makes me shallow as a reader, but it was a show-stopper for me.
The supposedly awkward unpopular nerd character who is attractive and not very good at being awkward and you can't figure out why they're not at least a little more liked.
Most of the time, I agree, but then they went and made a show almost completely populated with eccentric intellectuals, The Big Bang Theory. It is starting to get a bit tired now that everyone's got a girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband/cut little dog, but with unrequited love being the mainstay of the first few seasons, one has to wonder how the show even works now. But it's does still limp along, so I gotta give them points for that. I, too, am one of those oddball intellectuals (or, at least, I think I'm intellectual; who can tell, really, when looking in a mirror?) so I've hated most portrayals of this type of character when they're the only comedy relief in the room. They're abused, ridiculed and ostracized and yet they're still willing to build that fancy piece of technology the hero needs to win the day. Puke! So, I make the oddball my MC and screw those wavy-haired, body-building babe magnets. For comedy, it works, and I refuse to write anything else ever again.
I agree and with that in mind, I'm working toward creating a new type of character, the drama-relief character, who brings a spot of drama into a comedy just when you need to shed a tear or two. Can't say it's worked so far, but I'm on it.
You're right, there's a lot of this, too much for shows like The Big Bang Theory to counteract, especially when—like TBBT) shows seem to focus on the quirks instead of the intellect. It's almost as if society somehow got it into its head that anyone intelligent was dangerous and therefore intellect must—at all costs—be pushed to the sidelines where no one will take it seriously. And just in case one of those intellectuals tries to influence someone, there'll be lots of muscle-heads handy to beat their brains in, thereby keeping society safe. Personally, I think those in power set this up because they're afraid we'll see through their smoke-n-mirrors and it'll all come tumbling down. But will we ever know for sure? News from Iceland is so scarce these days.
I'm not saying you can't do eccentric intellectuals, just they should have more to them than that, and shouldn't feel like they're just inserted to be an eccentric intellectual. This might not be very popular, but I think Scotty from Star Trek seems to go in that direction from what I've seen. How much does he really have going on? I'm not convinced of him as a good character. But I don't know all that much, so, meh.
I would argue those characters do exist. Here's one version that's recognised; http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightOfCerebus.
And one needs wealth to buy the noble gas that'll defeat him... And when skill fails Superman (if ever he does need it) he can fall back on his planet-moving strength... which, BTW, makes me think Batman was a total idiot to ever think he could take him on.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Sure, brains were what discovered these things, but it was meat-heads who used them for evil, not the smart guys. Einstein didn't drop any atomic bombs (in fact, I've heard he tried to stop the development once he realized what the government had in mind) and Steve Wozniak never drew any 3D characters.
Batman is smarter and more equipped than Superman. Superman only has his powers. In the comics, Batman has beaten Superman on occasion by exploiting his lack of, well, anything useful in a fight other than his powers.
So Steve Jobs wasn't smart too? I mean, yeah, he got a bunch of his technology from Wozniak's designs but he was involved in that, and he was an excellent businessman.
I'm not sure how I missed this thread before but it's a good one! Most of mine have been mentioned, particularly the 'alpha male' and the Mary Sue/Gary Stew. I also eye-roll at the teenager in YA who's the only one in a sea of intelligent adults that can see something's wrong, even when it's blindingly obvious, and then single-handedly fixes it.
I see what you mean, but I had in mind that this drama-inducing character would show up, make the reader cry a tear or two, then bugger off until next he's needed... sort of the way comedy relief characters are used. In that Knight of Cerebus thing, it looks like the dramatic bad guy is going to hang around a while. That sort of thing has been done on TV shows for a while, now. Remember the serial killer in Bones who stole Jack Hodgins' billions (as if, but whatever) and almost killed half the cast? Or the mysterious group behind the death of Kate Beckett's mother in Castle? These season-arc characters are brought in to add tension and, as far as I'm concerned, they don't belong in comedy. Tension, sure, but that much tension? It makes a show unwatchable IMO. Short, sharp jabs of tension, then back to the comedy. That's what I like.
